| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 24.07.99 19:16l 197 Lines 6906 Bytes #-9785 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_171D
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/171D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8APD<PI8WNO<
PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990724/1349Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:41054 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_17
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17806 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 13:14:21 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014708 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:33:01 MET
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:26:42 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_171D>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/171D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>
> > >Quite simply, Unix and Linux was not designed to have a nifty user
> > >interface (although one can certainly install KDE, CDE, GNOME,
Windowmaker,
> > >Afterstep or E as a user interface.) Instead Unix and Linux were
designed
> > >to be extremely stable multi-user systems capable of squeaking the
maximum
> > >performance out of minimal hardware.
> >
> > Well, if that's what they were after, they better get back to the
drawing
> > board. LINUX is SLOW. A real dog. - And it regularly froze up when in
> > "X-Windoze". - Not exactly what I would call "extremely stable".
>
> That's not been my observation or the observation of just about any
> of the system administrators I know who use Linux on a regular basis.
> Indeed my first Linux install was on a used 386SX with 8MB ram and X was
> leaving Windows 95 on Pentium 150s in the dust.
>
> > It takes up WAY too much room on the HD, it takes up WAY too much time
to
> > load up and run, then it takes WAY too much time to load 'n run
programs,
> > then it takes WAY too long to get out of.
>
> Full installtion fo Linux is 100MB with distributions capable of of
> being run on a single floppy. (The minimal install is only 40MB.)
Windows
> 98 requires at a minimum 175MB of disk space with a full installtion
> cocking in at 295MB.
>
> In addition Windows 98 recommends a minimum of a 200MHz CPU while X for
Linux
> runs comfortably on a 486. If you are experiencing such extreme
performance
> problems, I would suggest that there is something wrong with your system.
>
> > This is in addition to the fact that it takes WAY too long to learn that
> > archaic command set, taken straight out of the 1970's. Why should Hams
take
> > a giant step backward, just to use difficult, poorly performing
software?
>
> If you don't like shell commands, there are a number of graphical
> alternatives (as opposed to a single graphical alternative for
> Microsoft Windows or Macintosh.) In addition, the CLI does make
> some tasks easier. For example, try renaming 50 files from filename.html
> to filename.shtml. This is a task that can be done in a single Unix
> command line. A Microsoft Windows consultant admitted the other day
> that she knew of no easy way to do this task in the Windows environment.
>
> Now on to your second question, why would hams choose to use Linux.
> 1: Thousands of users have found that Linux performs as well or
> better than Microsoft Windows NT for many tasks and is more stable. I
> suggest that you quit blaiming the OS for the performance problems and
> examine why they are happening.
>
> 2: Linux works well on older 386 and 486 systems which can't handle
> the demands of the currently support Microsoft OSs.
>
> 3: Almost everything about Linux is openly available including the latest
> 'beta' revisions to the source code.
>
> 4: There is a large number of both high-level and low-level programming
> tools. If you don't like the contest logging programs other people
> have developed, you can build your own in perl, Tcl/Tk, Python, C or C++.
>
> > > Linux is also a modular system
> > >which means that the core operating system comes only with a
command-line
> > >interface (and that interface is its self a program separate from the
core
> > >OS.) If one wishes to use a graphical user interface, one can choose
from
> > >a dozen window managers, about a half-dozen system administration
tools,
> > >more than two dozen email clients, and several word processing
programs,
> > >all of which are mostly independent from each other.
> >
> > - And few if any of which can compare to the freebee stuff given away
with
> > Win95/98.
>
> I don't find the free stuff given away with Win95/98 to be that
impressive.
> The terminal programs do not offer full VT100 and will render screens
> unreadable (there are at least 5 free terminal programs for X). The
> text editor is very basic and contains the minimum of features necessary
> to do actual work (the Red Hat distribution includes at least 4 text
> editors). Internet Explorer is a good web browser but every OS comes
> with a web browser.
>
> If you wish to use Win95/98 go right ahead. You have the choice as a
> consumer to do it your way.
>
> > I like modular systems, but only ones that perform well. FlexNet would
be an
> > example of a modular system that provides significantly better
performance
> > than the non-modular stuff it replaces.
> >
> > LINUX is modular, but it's performance is not impressive. It's pretty
sucky,
> > in fact.
>
> I would suggest that you look at why your experience in regards to
> performance contradicts that of 1000s of other users who find that
> it's performance is equal to, if not better than Windows NT.
>
> > 73 DE Charles Brabham,
> > N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> > http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kirk Job Sluder
> Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
> Email (csluder@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:07:36 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Linuxnet and xfbb?
upandatum wrote in message ...
>What the heck has this to do with ALT. HAM-RADIO.PACKET besides sounding
>like a pissing contest between you two ???????
I originally tried out LINUX in order to run the LINUX version of "FBB" BBS
and be able to offer telnet/ftp access for the local tcpip guys.
After LINUX went belly-up on me, I dug out an old copy of Win95, installed
the Windoze version of "FBB", and the FlexNet software, which allowed use of
Win95's tcpip apps and services on either AX25 or TCPIP packet. I did the
same thing that I could have done with LINUX, just as well or better.
And, just in case you have been out of the loop for a while, LINUX is being
widely proclaimed to be the best thing for Hams since sliced bread.
Sometimes a good dose of reality is in order, especially when something so
cruddy is being over-hyped.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 22:55:20 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Linuxnet and xfbb?
Kirk Job Sluder wrote in message ...
>> >I suggest that if you judge an operating system by the bells and
whistles
>> >attached to the interface, that you would be much happier with Windows
98.
>>
>> It's true that I judge an operating system for it's basic functionality.
To be continued in digest: pr_99_171E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
